Staff Reporter
SWAPO Central Committee (CC) member Dr. Charles Mubita has lost a case in which he sued Erongo-based fellow party member Reinhold Shipwiikineni for defamation over a WhatsApp audio.
Windhoek High Court Judge Eileen Rakow, in her judgment on the matter, granted an absolution from the instance application brought forth by Shipwiikineni, in which he requested that the matter be finalized and removed from the roll as the plaintiff did not provide prima facie evidence showing that he was indeed defamed.
The legal battle follows internal divisions that have arisen within the SWAPO party, with some believing that the party should have held an extraordinary congress to elect a new party president after the death of former President Dr. Hage Geingob in February 2024, while others argue that it was not obligated to do so.
Dr. Mubita sued Shipwiikineni after he compared him to being used like toilet paper to violate the party’s constitution, which supported the decision not to hold an extraordinary congress. Mubita sought financial compensation of N$370,000 with interest, along with an order compelling Shipwiikineni to retract the defamatory statements and issue an unconditional apology within five days of a court order.
High Court Judge Rakow, however, ruled against Dr. Mubita, stating that it was clear from the evidence that the plaintiff was indeed aggrieved by what the defendant said during his voice broadcast and that he took exception to the wording, descriptions, and references made toward him.
“It is also true that the broadcast indeed criticized the actions of the plaintiff and compared him to toilet paper. However, what is very clear from the lengthy extract in the matter of Cele v Avusa Media Ltd is that when dealing with politicians and political expression of views, it becomes more difficult to pass the test of defamation, as there is a general expectation for politicians to have a thicker skin, and political commentary can at times be robust.
Here, the public interest comes into play, as there is a right to debate political matters and make political comments. The plaintiff is clearly a public figure and a politician, and the comments made by the defendant relate to political matters within a political context. For these reasons, I find that the application for absolution must be upheld with costs,” Judge Rakow said.
